UNASSIGNED: Arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement has increased in popularity since the early 2000s when it was first described, although only a few midterm follow-up studies have been published.
UNASSIGNED: To describe the outcomes of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement at a mean 12-year follow-up and to determine the risk factors for failure.
UNASSIGNED: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.
UNASSIGNED: The Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS) and a radiographic evaluation were completed preoperatively and at midterm follow-up. Participants were divided into 2 groups according to their clinical evolution. The success group consisted of patients whose NAHS at the final follow-up was above the established Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) threshold of 81.9, whereas patients who underwent a second surgical intervention or did not reach the PASS threshold at final follow-up were assigned to the failure group. These groups were compared to identify preoperative differences in demographic, pathological, and surgical factors.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 95 hips were included, after 23 were lost to follow-up (80.5% follow-up). At a mean follow-up of 12.1 years (range, 9.2-16.0 years), 9 hips required total hip arthroplasty (9.5%), 5 required revision hip arthroscopy (5.3%), 29 did not achieve the NAHS PASS threshold (30.5%), and 52 achieved the NAHS PASS threshold (54.7%). The mean NAHS was 82.4 at final follow-up compared with 66.9 preoperatively (mean difference = 15.5; P < .001). Higher mean body mass index (24.9 vs 23.0; P = .030), older age (30.0 vs 27.2; P = .035), and inferior preoperative lateral joint space width (3.9 vs 4.4; P = .019) were associated with inferior prognosis in the failure group versus success group. Osteoarthritis progression was observed in 69.2% of the failure group and in 34.8% of the success group (P = .082). Labral ossification was observed in 78.3% of all patients, and its lateral projection length was statistically associated with failure (P = .015).
UNASSIGNED: At a mean 12-year follow-up, hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement led to significant clinical improvement, with 55% PASS achievement. In total, 31% of patients were below the PASS threshold, 5% had revision arthroscopy, and only 9% had conversion to total hip arthroplasty for a 45% global failure rate. Increased body mass index, older age, and smaller preoperative lateral joint space width were significant negative prognostic factors. Postoperative degenerative changes were highly prevalent and demonstrated association with failure.

BACKGROUND: Physical therapy and orthopaedic surgery are two common treatments for non-arthritic hip pain. Interdisciplinary evaluation across these disciplines may produce a more supportive treatment-planning process; however, the feasibility of such an evaluation remains unknown.
UNASSIGNED: To assess the feasibility of an interdisciplinary evaluation with an orthopaedic surgeon and physical therapist for non-arthritic hip pain.
METHODS: Observational feasibility study of a randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: Participants were randomized to an interdisciplinary (surgeon + physical therapist) or standard (surgeon) evaluation in a hip preservation clinic. Recruitment rate was recorded. Retention rate was calculated for all variables of interest. Enrollment and refusal reasons were recorded as patient quotes and categorized by a single grader. Time spent in clinic was compared across groups using Mann Whitney U tests (P ≤ 0.05). Study clinicians were interviewed, and responses were categorized based on pre-determined themes.
RESULTS: Eighty-one percent of eligible patients enrolled over a 15-month recruitment period. Willingness(n = 16), urgency to resolve pain(n = 10), financial compensation(n = 1), interest in research(n = 42), physical therapy(n = 6), or multiple-provider care(n = 15) were participants\' enrollment reasons; reason was not recorded for 22 participants. Time(n = 11), preference for single-provider care(n = 6), current physical therapy treatment(n = 1), and disinterest in physical therapy(n = 7) or research(n = 2) were refusal reasons of patients who did not enroll. Retention for primary variables of interest was 100% in both groups. Participants spent, on average, 23.5 min more time in clinic for the interdisciplinary evaluation compared to the standard (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: An interdisciplinary evaluation for patients with non-arthritic hip pain that included a physical therapist and orthopaedic surgeon in a hip preservation clinic was feasible and may better inform the treatment planning process.

UNASSIGNED: Arthroscopic treatment is recommended for hip synovial chondromatosis. However, evidence regarding long-term clinical outcomes is limited.
UNASSIGNED: To evaluate long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survival, and to determine the potential effect of residual loose bodies, as evaluated by immediate postoperative computed tomography (CT), on clinical outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
UNASSIGNED: A consecutive cohort of patients undergoing arthroscopic treatment and diagnosed with synovial chondromatosis between March 2010 and May 2015 were included in the study. Preoperative radiography, CT, and magnetic resonance imaging were performed. Preoperative, midterm (minimum of 4 years), and long-term (minimum of 8 years) PROs were collected for visual analog scale for pain, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and 12-item international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12). The percentages achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) were calculated. PROs and survival were compared between patients with and without residual loose bodies evident on immediate postoperative CT scan.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 28 patients (20% of patients were lost to follow-up) were included in the study with a mean follow-up period of 104.9 months (range, 96-139 months). PROs including visual analog scale for pain (preoperative, 3.8 ± 1.2; midterm, 0.9 ± 1.7; long-term, 0.8 ± 1.4), mHHS (preoperative, 66.4 ± 14.4; midterm, 92.8 ± 12.3; long-term, 93.5 ± 10.5), NAHS (preoperative, 45.2 ± 16.2; midterm, 81.8 ± 15.3; long-term, 83.1 ± 12.9), and iHOT-12 (preoperative, 48.4 ± 15.6; midterm, 69.3 ± 11.7; long-term, 72.7 ± 11.4) were improved at both midterm and long-term follow-up (all with P < .001). In total, 27 (96.4%), 28 (100%), and 26 (92.9%) patients achieved MCID for mHHS, NAHS and iHOT-12, respectively, at the long-term follow-up. No significant difference was found in any of the PROs and the rate of achieving MCID between midterm and long-term follow-up (all with P > .05). One patient (3.6%) underwent revision surgery. Among the 23 patients who had loose bodies on preoperative CT or radiographs, 14 patients (60.9%) with residual loose bodies evident on immediate postoperative CT demonstrated lower NAHS (P = .045) and iHOT-12 (P = .037) scores but a comparable survival (P > .05) at long-term follow-up compared with those who did not have loose bodies.
UNASSIGNED: Arthroscopic treatment for hip synovial chondromatosis achieved satisfactory long-term clinical outcomes with strong survival. Most patients maintained or improved their overall functional status between midterm and long-term follow-up. Furthermore, patients with residual loose bodies had less favorable clinical outcomes, although the survival rate was comparable.

UNASSIGNED: The indications for hip arthroscopy in patients aged ≥40 years remain controversial, as observational studies have suggested that advanced age portends poor functional outcomes, poor durability of improvement, and high rates of conversion to total hip arthroplasty.
UNASSIGNED: To compare hip arthroscopy versus nonoperative management for symptomatic labral tears in patients aged ≥40 years with limited radiographic osteoarthritis.
UNASSIGNED: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.
UNASSIGNED: This single-surgeon, parallel randomized controlled trial included patients aged ≥40 years with limited osteoarthritis (Tönnis grades 0-2) who were randomized 1:1 to arthroscopic surgery with postoperative physical therapy (SPT) or physical therapy alone (PTA). Patients who received PTA and achieved unsatisfactory improvement were permitted to cross over to SPT after completing ≥14 weeks of physical therapy (CO). The primary outcomes were the International Hip Outcome Tool-33 score and modified Harris Hip Score at 24 months after surgery, and secondary outcomes included other patient-reported outcome measures and the visual analog scale for pain. The primary analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis using linear mixed-effects models. Sensitivity analyses included modified as-treated and treatment-failure analyses.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 97 patients were included, with 52 (53.6%) patients in the SPT group and 45 (46.4%) patients in the PTA group. Of the patients who underwent PTA, 32 (71.1%) patients crossed over to arthroscopy at a mean of 5.10 months (SD, 3.3 months) after physical therapy initiation. In both intention-to-treat and modified as-treated analyses, the SPT group displayed superior mean patient-reported outcome measure and pain scores across the study period for nearly all metrics relative to the PTA group. In the treatment-failure analysis, the SPT and CO groups showed greater improvement across all metrics compared with PTA; however, post hoc analyses revealed no significant differences in improvement between the SPT and CO groups. No significant differences were observed between groups in rates of total hip arthroplasty conversion.
UNASSIGNED: In patients ≥40 years of age with limited osteoarthritis, hip arthroscopy with postoperative physical therapy led to better outcomes than PTA at a 24-month follow-up. However, additional preoperative physical therapy did not compromise surgical outcomes and allowed some patients to avoid surgery. When surgery is indicated, age ≥40 years should not be considered an independent contraindication to arthroscopic acetabular labral repair.
UNASSIGNED: NCT03909178 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of femoral head decentration (FHD) on different MR imaging planes in patients undergoing direct/indirect hip MR arthrography (MRA) with asymptomatic controls and to evaluate its association with osseous deformities.
METHODS: IRB-approved retrospective single-center study of symptomatic hips undergoing direct or indirect hip MRA at 3 T. Asymptomatic participants underwent non-contrast hip MRI at 3 T. FHD was defined as a continuous fluid layer between the acetabulum and femoral head and assessed on axial, sagittal and radial images. The association of intra-articular/intra-venous contrast agents and the prevalence of FHD was evaluated. The association of FHD with osseous deformities and joint damage was assessed using multiple logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: Three-hundred ninety-four patients (447 hips, mean age 31 ± 9 years, 247 females) were included and compared to 43 asymptomatic controls (43 hips, mean age 31 ± 6 years, 26 females). FHD was most prevalent on radial images and more frequent in symptomatic hips (30% versus 2%, p < 0.001). FHD prevalence was not associated with the presence/absence of intra-articular contrast agents (30% versus 22%, OR = 1.5 (95% CI 0.9-2.5), p = 0.125). FHD was associated with hip dysplasia (OR = 6.1 (3.3-11.1), p < 0.001), excessive femoral torsion (OR = 3.0 (1.3-6.8), p = 0.010), and severe cartilage damage (OR = 3.6 (2.0-6.7), p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: While rare in asymptomatic patients, femoral head decentration in symptomatic patients is associated with osseous deformities predisposing to hip instability, as well as with extensive cartilage damage.
UNASSIGNED: Decentration of the femoral head on radial MRA may be interpreted as a sign of hip instability in symptomatic hips without extensive cartilage defects. Its presence could unmask hip instability and yield promise in surgical decision-making.
CONCLUSIONS: The best method of identifying femoral head decentration is radial MRI. The presence/absence of intra-articular contrast is not associated with femoral head decentration. Femoral head decentration is associated with hip deformities predisposing to hip instability.

OBJECTIVE: Bone marrow stimulation is a common treatment for full-thickness cartilage defects in the hip joint. However, common procedures may result in poor fibrous repair tissue and changes to the subchondral anatomy. This study investigated the clinical outcome of a cohort of International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) grades 3 and 4 cartilage defects treated with bone marrow stimulation compared to those who received simple debridement/chondroplasty.
METHODS: In this retrospective registry study, 236 patients with uni-focal acetabular chondral lesions of the hip up to 400 mm² (mean 177.4 ± 113.4 mm²) and of ICRS grade ≥3 with follow-up of at least 12 months (mean 33.2 ± 15.3 months) were included. Eighty-one patients underwent bone marrow stimulation (microfracture: n = 44, abrasion: n = 37) besides treatment of the underlying pathology, 155 patients underwent defect debridement/chondroplasty. The patient-reported outcome was measured using the International Hip Outcome Tool 33 (iHOT33) score and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain.
RESULTS: iHOT33 and VAS both improved highly statistically significantly (p < 0.001) in the debridement group after 6, 12, 24, 36 and 60 months compared to the preoperative scores, whereas iHOT33 and VAS after microfracture or abrasion did not show statistically significant changes over time. Twenty-four and sixty months postsurgery the debridement group revealed significant higher scores in the iHOT33 compared to the bone marrow stimulation groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chondral lesions of the hip ≤400 mm2 sustainably benefit from arthroscopic debridement under preservation of the subchondral bone plate in terms of functional outcome and pain in contrast to patients treated with bone marrow stimulation. These findings discourage the currently recommended use of microfracture in the hip joint.
METHODS: Level III.

BACKGROUND: Detailed postoperative rehabilitation protocols after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) are still a matter of debate. Adjunctive hip bracing represents a promising tool to improve early patients\' mobilization. To present, the effect of hip brace therapy on postoperative functional outcomes and specific patient individual psychologic factors remains controversially discussed. Consequently, we aimed to report postoperative outcomes focusing on hip function, pain and kinesiophobia between braced and unbraced patients.
METHODS: A prospective, randomized-controlled trial was conducted, including patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAIS. After exclusion, a final study cohort of 36 patients in the intervention group (postoperative hip brace) and 36 patients in the control group (no hip brace) were compared for kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia), pain (Visual analog scale) and joint function (International Hip Outcome Tool-12) within the first six postoperative months.
RESULTS: Hip arthroscopy significantly improved all patient-reported outcomes in both groups. Intergroup analysis revealed significantly lower levels of kinesiophobia in braced patients at 6-months follow up (30.7 vs. 34.1, p = 0.04) while not negatively affecting pain and joint function. No intra- and postoperative complications occurred within both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This study could demonstrate that bracing after hip arthroscopy can positively influence kinesiophobia, while the brace did not negatively impact postoperative pain and quality of life. Thus, hip bracing could be a viable assistive therapy in the postoperative rehabilitation phase after hip arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Hip replacement surgery is highly effective in relieving pain and improving mobility in patients with various hip conditions. However, some patients develop groin pain after surgery, often due to iliopsoas impingement (IPI), which can be challenging to diagnose. Conservative treatments are initially recommended, but when these are not effective, surgical options may be considered. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes, success and failure rates, revision rates, and complications associated with arthroscopic and endoscopic surgery for IPI, thereby providing a comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness and risks of these surgical interventions.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, including a thorough search of five main databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane. Eligible articles were meticulously evaluated according to predefined criteria for levels of evidence (LoE), with retrospective studies assessed using the Coleman Methodology Score (mCMS). This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).
RESULTS: Among the 16 included studies, 431 patients with 434 hips underwent either endoscopic or arthroscopic tenotomy. Both techniques showed favorable outcomes, with arthroscopic tenotomy demonstrating slightly higher success rates than endoscopic tenotomy. Common complications included mild pain and occasional infections, with recurrence observed in some cases. Both techniques offer direct visualization of prosthetic components and potential preservation of psoas function.
CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic and endoscopic iliopsoas tenotomy are effective treatments for alleviating symptoms and improving hip function in patients with IPI post-total hip arthroplasty (THA).
METHODS: IV.

Intra-articular injections prior to hip arthroscopy are often used to diagnose and conservatively manage hip pathologies, such as femoroacetabular impingement, labral tears, and chondral lesions. As a diagnostic tool, the relief of hip pain following an intra-articular injection helps pinpoint the primary source of pain and assists surgeons in recommending arthroscopic intervention for underlying intra-articular pathologies. However, when injections are not sufficiently spaced apart in time prior to hip arthroscopy, there is an elevated risk of postoperative infection. This systematic review aims to assess whether preoperative intra-articular injections prior to hip arthroscopy are associated with an increased risk of postoperative infection and to determine the safety timeframe for administering such injections prior to the procedure. A comprehensive search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies examining the relationship between preoperative intra-articular injections and postoperative infection following hip arthroscopy. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the risk of infection between patients who received injections prior to hip arthroscopy at varying intervals and those who did not receive any preoperative injections. Five studies were included (four level III and one level IV), which consisted of 58,576 patients (58.4% female). Injections administered anytime prior to hip arthroscopy posed a significantly higher risk of infection compared to no history of prior injections (risk ratio: 1.45, 95% confidence interval: 1.14-1.85, P = 0.003). However, upon subanalysis, the risk of infection was significantly higher among patients who received injections within three months prior to hip arthroscopy compared to those who did not receive injections (risk ratio: 1.55, 95% confidence interval: 1.19-2.01, P = 0.001). Additionally, no significant difference in infection risk was observed when injections were administered more than three months before hip arthroscopy compared to no injections (risk ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.56-1.99, P = 0.87). The findings suggest that patients undergoing hip arthroscopy who have previously received intra-articular injections may face a statistically higher risk of postoperative infection, particularly when the injection is administered within three months prior to hip arthroscopy. Consequently, surgeons should exercise caution and avoid administering intra-articular injections to patients scheduled for hip arthroscopy within the subsequent three months to mitigate the increased risk of infection.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize hip capsule thickness on advanced imaging in patients with and without hip dysplasia and to also evaluate differences in capsular thickness between borderline and true dysplastic patients.
METHODS: Patients evaluated by the senior author for concerns of hip pathology from June 2020 to June 2021 were queried and images reviewed to determine dysplasia status by lateral center edge angle (LCEA) ≤ 25 degrees. A group of non-dysplastic patients was identified and matched for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). Hip capsular thickness was quantified using MRI. A sub-analysis was conducted to compare true dysplastic patients (LCEA < 20°) to borderline dysplastic patients (LCEAs between 20 - 25°). Analysis included independent samples t-tests, Chi-square tests, and multivariable regression.
RESULTS: Eighty total patients were included, with a mean age of 31.8 ± 11.7 years, a mean BMI of 26.6 ± 6.5 points, and 70% (56) female patients. Dysplastic patients had a mean LCEA of 19.8 ± 4.3 degrees. Dysplastic individuals had decreased capsular thickness compared to their non-dysplastic controls (2.75 ± 0.96 vs 3.52 ± 1.22 mm, p = 0.003). Multivariable regression showed decreased capsular thickness associated with decreased LCEAs (β = 2.804, R = 0.432, p<0.001) and dysplasia (β = -0.709, R2 = 0.056, p = 0.004). Results of a sub-analysis of the dysplastic group examining differences between accepted definitions of borderline dysplasia and true dysplasia showed no significant differences in capsular thickness between the two groups (p = 0.379).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with hip dysplasia were found to have thinner iliofemoral ligaments in the coronal plane on magnetic resonance imaging on magnetic resonance imaging. Further investigation is needed to evaluate any potential implications with hip instability given the thinner hip capsule demonstrated in this study.